241–250 of 634 posts
The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends
I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their product, that seems pretty easy to remedy. I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive consent from people in vid…
Despite using the same terminology as copyright law, the rights photographers have are different and the use of terminology is different.
To use the USA as an example because it's easier, photographers always have the right take photos on public property and they do not need consent to do so, and they also have the right to publish those photos and do not need consent to do so. Traditionally publishing would have meant publishing to print or broadcast media (i.e., news) where commercial activity is inherently implied. Today, publishing would also include posting to a blog, social media, sites like YouTube, etc.
Where photographers usually need consent is using those images commercially, however since they already have the right to publish (and to profit from) images, what commercial use in this context means is to use those images in advertising, to use those images in merchandise, to sell those photos to image libraries (think stock photography websites), etc. This is in contrast to copyright law where there's no publish/commercial distinction and where a licence prohibiting commercial use prohibits selling that work.
Of course none of that applies here, it was filmed on private property where the mall owner likely requires consent before people can take photos, and also because it's Australia which doesn't give blanket permission for people to take and publish photos without consent. However if Australia is anything like the UK the restrictions are that you can't take photos, or publish photos, of people that have an expectation of privacy, although this was filmed in a public place so there's likely no expectation to privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
I hate when a real car accident is attributed to a drunk driver when it was not. There are plenty of wrecked cars from actual drunk driving, you don't need to lie to get an example. Some people think their intentions justify their actions, even when their actions can accurately be described as "lie" or "cheat" or "for profit" or some other dishonest thing. This may be effective in many cases, but in others it discredits your efforts and perhaps even your cause.
Random acts of kindness DO happen, but are usually not captured on video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
The staged stuff doesn't bother me as much as the dangerous stuff: https://www.fastcompany.com/90287323/people-are-falling-off-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
With staged content the only victim is the duped audience who can always just not watch TikTok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the amount of beggars in cities, I already highly distrust anyone who comes up to me to speak to me. 99 out of 100 times it is someone who tries to somehow enrich themselves.
Please be more empathetic to people who beg for money.
Because it is really, really hard to be empathetic with the homeless folks here, based on how they behave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't a limitation of Kant's view that intention is all that matters? In other words, neither context or outcome change the morality of the action?
It's not her limitation. A limitation would be to not realise the true intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please be more empathetic to people who beg for money.
Quoted post unavailable.
Consider visiting Reddit, where discourse of the form "So $MISREPRESENTATION_OF_STATED_OPINION" is more accepted.